Friday, June 24, 2016

Off-Topic: We have to get our heads out of the sand.

New gun laws will make people feel safer, but in reality, they'll do little to curb mass killings. The real problem we're facing as a nation, is terrorism. A small portion of Muslim Immigrants are being radicalized, and until that problem is confronted head-on, this situation will continue.Gun laws could be moderately effective at preventing domestic "impulse crimes". The problem is, mass killings and terrorist attacks are not "impulse crimes". The perpetrators of these "mass killings" stew over this stuff for weeks... even months. They plan and premeditate these events for long periods. My point: These quacks have weeks (or even months) to secure a gun... and believe me, they will. But the fact is, they don't even need a gun. The planes used to destroy the twin towers, were hijacked without guns. The Boston Marathon bombers fashioned their own bomb, out of a pressure cooker. If someone is hellbent on killing, they'll find a way. New gun laws might decrease domestic crime by 10% (if we're lucky). The other 90% of this problem, will only be solved by addressing terrorism, and "radical Islam" specifically.God Bless America. It's the only land, where the enemy is welcomed with open arms. Strict Immigration Laws and background checks for all incoming Muslims, would be much more effective than gun control.I don't have a problem with background checks for gun purchases. I don't have a problem with laws prohibiting gun sales to individual's on the FBI "no fly list". I don't have a problem with a ban on "assault weapons". Those measures make sense. But if anyone believes those measures (alone) are going to solve the problem of "mass killings" and terrorism in this country, they're extremely naive. The answer to this grave situation, is a two-prong approach. Peace.

We need a system to keep weapons out of the hands of potential terrorists... but we ALSO need a system in place, to stop potential terrorists from entering the country in the first place. It has to be a two-tier safety net.

The whole situation boils down to dirty politics.

Donald Trump supports background checks for gun sales, and he also supports the "no fly list" gun restriction. However, he draws the line with banning "assault weapons". The fact is, Trump knows full well, that assault weapons aren't necessary for personal defense (they're complete overkill), but he doesn't want to lose NRA votes.

Barack Obama, is pulling the same bullshit. Obama knows exactly who our enemy is, but he doesn't want to impose sanctions on Muslims, because Democrats will lose Muslim votes. He also doesn't want to deal with the foreign affair nightmare that would ensue, if he admitted the truth about Muslim immigrants. He's attempting to keep the peace, by keeping his mouth shut. But unfortunately, it's not really "peace", because radicalized Muslims are already killing us by the dozens... and they've BEEN killing us.

BOTH parties are full of shit, and that's why a successful 2-prong approach, is not likely to happen. To his credit though, Donald Trump is at least willing to buck his party's nonsense, to a limited degree.

I've attended school with Muslims.I've worked with Muslims.Heck... the guy that puts the inspection sticker on my car every year, is a Muslim.

Most Muslims are decent people.

I don't believe in preaching hate for an entire religion of people... but, we also have to be realistic and vigilant.

The challenge here, is to weed-out the bad seeds who pose a threat... and as of now, it's a small minority.It's a tough challenge, but the FBI and the Immigration Department are up to the task, under the right leadership.

LynnI won't deny that your proposal is held by a number of people. And I see where you are coming from and know you are not preaching 'hate' for an entire religion of people. However, posing a religious test violates the Constitution.

But assuming you could get past that, there is a practical reason. How would we do it? Would a question on a visa applications ask for one’s religion? How could we ensure that people would answer honestly? After all, if one wanted to do harm he/she would have no issue on lying on the visa application. Would we instead then make the ban apply to individuals holding citizenship from Muslim-majority countries? If so, then our Muslim allies would most likely take great offense.

As you note, most people of any religion, race, or creed are decent people. We live in very difficult times. Times in which holding to our principles is tried the most. After all, few decent people today would agree with the rounding up Japanese- American Citizens and putting them in internment camps as was done in WW2 was a good idea. Nor in regards to African-Americans was having 'separate but equal' facilities aka 'Jim Crow.' We look back, rightly so, and shake our heads about such actions.

L. said: Donald Trump supports background checks for gun sales, and he also supports the "no fly list" gun restriction. However, he draws the line with banning "assault weapons". The fact is, Trump knows full well, that assault weapons aren't necessary for personal defense (they're complete overkill), but he doesn't want to lose NRA votes.

Since assault weapons (rifles) are capable of full automatic fire, you need a license from the ATF to purchase one. So, for all practical purposes assault weapons are already prohibited, since the 1930s. The rifles referred to are those fired with one trigger pull, just like a revolver. These wrongly identified rifles are the targets of the gun grabbers.

The second amendment goes beyond firearms for personal protection. The intent was to have citizens armed with TO&E weapons equal to regular army soldiers. The purpose was to form an armed ready reserve able to gather quickly and meet threats. The biggest threat being a tyrannical government, feared the founders, which is why they added the second.

Single trigger pull high capacity magazine fed rifles are needed as well for self protection. When the BNW hits, you'll want standoff capability beyond the range of a pistol.

Out of context but...from the police report Sharon had a .45 revolver in her home at Cielo Drive. Don't know if it was loaded or where they found it. Had she had it available that night when Susan walked in,what a different story we'd have. Jay, some have said, carried a loaded gun in his car. I read somewhere a theory that Sharon's blood was outside on the porch and sidewalk because she and Jay were heading for his car and the gun. Jay collapsed and Linda stabbed Sharon in the back and pushed her into the house.

I don't like Trump's ban on Muslims because of the temporary nature. It should be permanent. Deportation for Muslims here should proceed forthwith. Islam is not a religion, it's a repressive totalitarian system to support an oppressive elite, much like communism.

The religious test is prohibited for use against USCs and legal residents. It doesn't apply to immigrants. A prez can ban Muslims, or whomever if he wishes to do so. It would help if we'd quit fucking with Muslim countries, although Islam has had a hard-on for the west since MooHAMid fucked his first camel.

The problem at Orlando was that state law declares clubs as gun free zones. Many folks would have survived had someone returned fire.

FDR was correct to pull the Japs off the west coast. After Rosenfeld maneuvered us into an unnecessary war to save Stalin and the pig Churchill, he had no choice to be suspicious of the Japs out west. BTW he put WOPs and Krauts into camps as well.

Congratulations to the UK for BREXIT success. Now we need a TEXIT.

"I'll take my knapsack on my backMy rifle on my shoulder.I'll march away to the firing lineTo kill that Yankee soldier To kill that Yankee soldier.

...and heaven be with the side of rightAnd with the southern soldier.So we'll drive that mercenary hordeBeyond our southern bordersBeyond our southern borders.

... I'll take my knapsack on my backMy rifle on my shoulder.I'll march away to the firing lineTo kill that Yankee soldierKill that Yankee soldier."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HeZtFH1Trg

" . . . [T]he consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has overwhelmed all those [Republics] that have preceded it." Robert E. Lee,1866.

If 'President Trump' banned Muslim immigration based on religion it would certainly be challenged in the Supreme Court. I thought this was very telling. Two Republican leaders -certainly not 'liberal' made these comments:

"Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) on Friday said Donald Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslim travel into the U.S. would not survive constitutional scrutiny.

“If I had to pick a particular position that would concern me the most, it would be the ban on Muslims,” Cole, a lawmaker close to GOP leadership, said Friday on MSNBC. "I think it’s clearly, you know, unconstitutional, it’s ill-advised, it would really hurt the U.S.

“We need a lot of Muslim friends to deal with what we’re dealing with overseas, and we have some great Muslim friends. And we ought to recognize that and be sensitive.”Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday said he is also concerned about the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's comments regarding Muslims.

“I disagreed publicly with Trump’s statement when he made it several months ago,” he said during an interview with Yahoo! News. "It’s completely unworkable. I don’t like it at all. I disagree with it.”

McConnell added that close ties with Muslim Americans are essential for preventing radical Islamic terrorism on American soil."

Surgio said:"Since assault weapons (rifles) are capable of full automatic fire, you need a license from the ATF to purchase one. So, for all practical purposes assault weapons are already prohibited, since the 1930s. The rifles referred to are those fired with one trigger pull, just like a revolver. These wrongly identified rifles are the targets of the gun grabbers."

Your information is accurate.

True military "assault weapons" are fully automatic.You hold the trigger down, and it keeps firing.

The "AR-15" (and the like) which are sold to civilians, are shaped exactly the same as military assault weapons (they're basically replicas)... but they're not fully automatic weapons... they're semi-automatic.As you said, each time you pull the trigger, the gun fires only once.

BUT unfortunately... because the AR-15 (and the like) are physically shaped like a military "tactical" assault weapon, people panic.

In reality, the "AR-15" is just a semi-automatic rifle, with no greater capabilities than any semi-automatic hunting rifle... it just looks much more daunting.

But... that's kinda my point.

The NRA, Donald Trump, Republicans, and gun owners in general, would really lose nothing, if they conceded to the ignorance of the general public, and simply bought semi-automatic hunting rifles instead.Personally, I think the modern "tactical guns" (such as the AR-15) are ugly as ass anyway.

If those "assault weapons" scare people, why bother?Having guns shaped like M16's is kinda silly, and it serves no real purpose... as I said, it's overkill.The gun manufacturers are probably making big money on those tactical "replicas", because gun owners themselves, evidently believe there's something "magical", or inherently more "lethal" about them.It's foolish.I say, ban them... and let all the liberals stfu.

Surgio said:"The second amendment goes beyond firearms for personal protection. The intent was to have citizens armed with TO&E weapons equal to regular army soldiers. The purpose was to form an armed ready reserve able to gather quickly and meet threats. The biggest threat being a tyrannical government, feared the founders, which is why they added the second."

I agree.The intent of the second amendment, was for civilians to have weapons comparable to the "present-day" military (i.e., government), in case the government became oppressive.

However, in 2016, that's not really practical (or possible).We have tanks and nuclear weapons now.It would be pretty near impossible, to arm civilians with the capability of challenging a tyrannical government in 2016.I don't see local police departments issuing licenses for tanks and grenades, any time soon.Technically Surgio, you're right... but sometimes, you have to be realistic.

Surgio said:Single trigger pull high capacity magazine fed rifles are needed as well for self protection. When the BNW hits, you'll want standoff capability beyond the range of a pistol."

I agree.I have no problem with people owning rifles.Magazine-fed rifles have been around forever... I'm not sure how many would be considered "high capacity" though...(I guess you could just carry an extra magazine, LOL).

I do however, believe that guns and alcohol don't mix.Guns in nightclubs, are a hard sell.I no longer frequent bars... but, if there were people carrying concealed guns in there, I DEFINITELY wouldn't go.Even gun manuals and safety trainers admonish folks to avoid drinking, while handling guns.Again, sometimes you have to be realistic.

The Japanese told us they were our friends, right before the BOMBED PEARL HARBOR.

THEY LIED!

June 26, 2016 at 12:43 AM"

So, Katie let me get this straight: The Japanese-AMERICANS who lived here in the US ---they lied? They knew about the attack beforehand? Many of them had been in the US for generations their only crime was being of Japanese ethnicity. Jeeez, you can't be serious.

They deserved to have their property confiscated and put into internment camps? For what crime? ------------------Hey Lyn, I'll be out of town but will catch you next week. No hurry.

Johnny neither you nor I know the fear and anger felt by the American people on December 7, 1941. We do know the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. We do know that they promised they wouldn't take military action against the U.S., that they were our "friends".

If you are commiserating about the "Japanese-Americans" (didn't call them that back then) being mistreated, then why don't you transport yourself back in time and see how they felt.

Oh wait, you don't have to. Just feel what it's like to be attacked on 9/11 by Muslim terrorists, and then want ALL terrorists gone from this country, starting with the Muslims who started the whole thing!

Okay wait a second. Johnny, are you saying that you are more worried about the "Japanese-Americans" (today's throw word) that were living in the U.S., presumably on the West Coast, being thrown in camps, than you are about the over 2,000 AMERICANS killed and over 1,000 AMERICANS wounded in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which was instigated by an unprovoked attack on our Naval Forces by Japan?

A war that the U.S. decided they didn't want to get involved in? A war that the U.S. wished would just go away? A war that the U.S. did nothing to invoke? A war that the U.S. was ambushed in by Japan? A war that was brought on by an empire that was allied with Nazi Germany? A war that said empire left us crippled regarding our naval resources without regard to our civilians? An empire that would have gone inland and attacked our naval forces in CA TO END IT but decided to retract at the last minute?

And you are more "worried" about the "Japanese-Americans" that were living in the U.S.?

An unexpected action by the Japs that took my own father out of college to join the Army Air Corps in 1942. An unexpected action that brought millions of men and women to join "the cause". To leave their jobs, their families, their college education to join the military expeditions, because they WERE FORCED TO?

Johnny said:"LynnI won't deny that your proposal is held by a number of people. And I see where you are coming from and know you are not preaching 'hate' for an entire religion of people. However, posing a religious test violates the Constitution.

But assuming you could get past that, there is a practical reason. How would we do it? Would a question on a visa applications ask for one’s religion? How could we ensure that people would answer honestly? After all, if one wanted to do harm he/she would have no issue on lying on the visa application. Would we instead then make the ban apply to individuals holding citizenship from Muslim-majority countries? If so, then our Muslim allies would most likely take great offense."

With all due respect Johnny, Immigration to this country is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. We can make our immigration policies as stringent as we so choose, and it's nobody's business (but our own). We owe the world nothing.

I have no problem asking folks to indicate their religion, on an Immigration form. I'm asked to indicate that I'm "white", on almost every application that I fill out. If someone wants to immigrate here badly enough, they can answer a question regarding their religion (and undergo a background check). It won't kill them.

As for implementation, the FBI is ALREADY identifying these terrorists with pretty good accuracy. The problem is, we don't ACT on the information. We sit on the information WAY too long. We're too fucking soft.

Case in point...

Regarding the Boston Bombers:

The FBI had investigated Zubeidat Tsarnaeva (The bombers' mother), and the CIA arranged for her to be added to the terrorism database, LONG before the bombings took place.

ALSO...Russian authorities had contacted the U.S. government repeatedly about Tamerlin Tsarnaev's suspected ties to radical Islam.

The chief spokesman for the FBI, Mike Kortan, said the FBI interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011, at the urging of Russia.

NOTHING FURTHER WAS DONE!

Regarding the Orlando incident:

The FBI investigated the Orlando shooter for 10 months beginning in 2013, putting him under surveillance, recording his calls and using confidential informants to gauge whether he had been radicalized after the suspect talked at work about his connections with al-Qaeda and dying as a martyr.

Omar Mateen was placed on a terrorism watch list and interviewed twice before the probe was closed in March 2014.

Several months later, in July 2014, Mateen surfaced in another investigation.

NOTHING FURTHER WAS DONE!

My point, Johnny:The FBI is identifying these dangerous people with pretty good accuracy.The problem is... we're not ACTING on the information.

Americans are too fucking soft.We don't want to "offend" anyone.

As soon as there's ONE red flag... we should immediately halt Immigration proceedings.Move-on to the NEXT Muslim Immigration applicant!

Will we wrongly identify, and wrongly deny some applicants?Sure. There will be a percentage of mistakes on our part.But, I'd rather "err" on the side of caution.

If any Muslims get butt-hurt with our conservative decisions, instead of blaming us for their misfortune, they should blame their "radical brothers" for ruining their immigration chances.Put the fucking blame, where the blame is due!This country NEVER had a problem with Muslim immigrants, until they started KILLING us.

I have no problem denying firearms to suspected threats, either.ONE red flag with the FBI, and you can't buy a gun... period.

For the record, I have no problem with the Japanese internment camps of WWII.If the Japanese people have a problem, they can blame their misery on their "maniacal brethren", who dragged us into WWII.Again, place the blame, where it is due.

We have to stop being so "politically correct" and ban muslims from this country. Not because of their religion, but because of their potential danger to U.S. citizens.

See Katie, this is where people get it wrong, right from the get-go. Not just you, but vast majority get it wrong. Islam is not a religion, it's a cult. Mosques should be banned...they are just finding that out now in France.

And Lynard, I see you haven't had much experience with Moslems. I'm surrounded by the pricks, so I know full well what I'm talking about.

For the record, I have no problem with the Japanese internment camps of WWII.If the Japanese people have a problem, they can blame their misery on their "maniacal brethren", who dragged us into WWII.Again, place the blame, where it is due.June 29, 2016 at 1:11 AM

Lynn, we are not talking about foreign nationals. WE are talking about American Citizens of Japanese descent. I would hope that you would understand that they were as American then as you are today. And that would make you reflect that stripping them of their freedom, of their property, and their dignity was a bad thing. I would also ask you to look up the 442nd Go For Broke Infantry Unit of volunteers who fought from 1944 on, was the most decorated unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

Place the blame where it is due? I agree. As you know from history class, the reason our forefathers came here was to stop things such as blood crimes. IE If a relative of yours committed a crime we don't toss the entire family in jail. The Constitution outlaws such barbaric tactics.

Lynn, you are way too smart and decent to hold the views you are espousing.

katie8753 said...Okay wait a second. Johnny, are you saying that you are more worried about the "Japanese-Americans" (today's throw word) that were living in the U.S., presumably on the West Coast, being thrown in camps, than you are about the over 2,000 AMERICANS killed and over 1,000 AMERICANS wounded in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which was instigated by an unprovoked attack on our Naval Forces by Japan?

A war that the U.S. decided they didn't want to get involved in? A war that the U.S. wished would just go away? A war that the U.S. did nothing to invoke? A war that the U.S. was ambushed in by Japan? A war that was brought on by an empire that was allied with Nazi Germany? A war that said empire left us crippled regarding our naval resources without regard to our civilians? An empire that would have gone inland and attacked our naval forces in CA TO END IT but decided to retract at the last minute?

And you are more "worried" about the "Japanese-Americans" that were living in the U.S.?

An unexpected action by the Japs that took my own father out of college to join the Army Air Corps in 1942. An unexpected action that brought millions of men and women to join "the cause". To leave their jobs, their families, their college education to join the military expeditions, because they WERE FORCED TO?

And you are more worried about the "Japanese Americans"?

Just clarifying....

June 28, 2016 at 10:27 PM

Happy to clarify. Why would you blame people who had nothing to do with an act. What are you accomplishing. I would concentrate my energies against the country from which the attack came: Japan. I would not be wasting time and energy rounding up American citizens and putting them in internment camps. BTW, this is 2016 and using the word Japs is fairly offensive. The late Senator Daniel Innoye, a member of the most decorated unit that fought in WW2, tells what it was like when he came back from WW2 without his right arm. Around 1946 he was still in the military near the city of Oakland CA, wearing his khaki uniform with all his decorations and went to the barber shop to get a haircut only to be told 'we don't cut Jap hair.' I guess YOU would be okay with that?

LynnOf course immigration is a privilege. Immigration should be legal and should be regulated. The issue with the FBI is that no matter how good they are, they only have to be wrong once and a terrorist act will occur.

We both spent time in the military when we were young men and both of us took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Those protections are in their for a good reason. As JFK said, “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

There is a lot in that statement beyond the black letters. It is one of the most thoughtful 15 word sentences you will ever read.

If those Japs were living in East or West Texas, they weren't put into interment camps. They were either hanged from the highest tree, or dragged behind someone's pickup truck until they were goo.

And believe you me, no one knew the wiser.June 29, 2016 at 10:50 PM

Now Katie, let me get this straight. Because of the attack at Pearl Harbor by the country of Japan, you are advocating that we can pick any random Japanese American in Texas and just kill them? For what purpose? Under this theory, if your neighbor has his child run over in the street by a chain smoking middle aged woman then he would be justified going over to your house and if he verified that you had a driver's license he would be justified in killing you. Not because you actually committed the crime, but because you belong to that category of middle age chain smoking women with a driver's license.

I believe in punishment but I prefer to get the right person. I'm not much for hurting innocent folk. Do you actually have any friends who are Americans of Japanese descent? Would you really tell them that you thought it okay for them to be murdered after the Pearl Harbor Attack?

For you to sit there in your easy chair in 2016 and PONTIFICATE about how people back in 1942 should have felt about Japanese people living in this country, after Japan BOMBED OUR MOST STRATEGIC NAVAL BASE IN PEARL HARBOR FOR 2-1/2 HOURS AND TRIED TO LAY WASTE TO OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!

I am not defending the bombing by the Government of Japan. I am defending American Citizens from being put into Internment Camps. And yes, it's not that hard to understand that was a poor decision. Why can't you understand the difference?

Exactly what tactic are you referencing? Pointing out the offensive nature of your post?

I am a non smoking middle aged man and that is not offensive. I was being descriptive. And no, calling someone a 'Jap' is not 'okay.' It's a racially offensive word.

My father fought the Japanese in the Pacific, during WWII.He was THERE... and he told me everything.I could literally write a book, with all the information he imparted to me.

During WWII, the Germans were the incarnation of the devil on earth.During WWII, the Japanese were their ALLIES, and maniacal fanatics, in their own right.

Those nation's, along with Italy, dragged the world into several years of bloody misery.

I make absolutely NO apologies for the atomic bombs OR the internment camps... absolutely ZERO!I support my country's decisions and tactics during WWII 100%... and I ALWAYS will.

Do you have ANY IDEA, what would have happened to us (and our children), if we had lost the war (to those maniacs)??Do you really think those devils would be apologizing to us right now??

My father saw mass starvation aboard his ship.He saw men go insane aboard ship.He WATCHED, as his sister ship sank to the bottom of the ocean, with 3600 men aboard.Have you ever seen 3600 people disappear into the ocean?

Shall I continue? I could write 250 pages.

Everyone is an armchair expert on wartime morality, from the comfort of their living room.

Drop to your knees tonight, and thank GOD, that he saved us from those wild dogs.Only by the grace of GOD, did we emerge victorious.Victory was NOT a foregone conclusion.

This topic is personal, and you're really striking a nerve.As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is closed.

The United States did the right thing, with the internment camps.You can't take a chance on security, when you're fighting a war.

I've worked with DOZENS of 1st-generation immigrants from MANY different countries.Regardless of their country of origin, they ALL have a common thread: Their devotion and love for their native "homeland" is unwavering.

It's understandable.

I could move ANYWHERE in the world tomorrow, and at heart, I will ALWAYS be an American.People don't forget their roots and home.

If I was living in another country (and the United States was engaged in a war), I'd "drop a dime" in a SECOND, if I had ANY information that would aid my American brothers.Who wouldn't?

People in 2016, are so fucking naive.

If it's any consolation to bleeding hearts like Johnny, I'm sure the Japanese people in those US internment camps, had a much easier road than our soldiers and sailors fighting overseas.

Well, don't tear your eyes out or get castrated. And getting an aneurysm is always a bad idea (crap, just trying to spell that word almost gave me an aneurysm).

Again, we are talking about American Citizens of Japanese descent who had nothing to do with the attack at Pearl Harbor. Why blame an entire group of Americans who are innocent for a crime committed by an entirely separate nation. Go after the Country that committed the crime. Don't look within your own Country and punish innocents. And yes, that is always the wrong answer. A lot of bad things are cited in the name of 'security.'

I am talking about American Citizens whose name ended in a vowel. Folks who lived here who had nothing to do with it. If it was happening to you or people you knew then you may be a little less casual about those rights. Most were born here and they were as American as you are. Some were second/third generation. A minority immigrated here and playing by the rules were Americans citizens by choice because they wanted a better life. Worked hard, played by the rules.

Is it your position that if someone in your family three states away commits a crime is it okay to hold you responsible? After all, can't take a chance on security and if one member of your family commits a crime it makes your entire brood suspect. There are places that still do that. We don't do 'blood crimes' here in America and as we come up on the 4th one should really reflect on it. Did you miss that day in history class? Do we follow your blood lines to your ancestors country of origin and then hold you responsible for any current day misdeeds?

"You sleep under the very blanket of liberty that I provide, and then, you question the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just said 'Thank You', and went on your way."

Okay, I prefer my JFK quote to Jack Nicholson but I'll roll with it. The blanket of liberty is the Constitution. And yes, when it is violated by someone in government it should be questioned.

"If it's any consolation to bleeding hearts like Johnny, I'm sure the Japanese people in those US internment camps, had a much easier road than our soldiers and sailors fighting overseas."

So okay, I'll cop to being a bleeding heart. But I earned the right by doing more than pay taxes. I gave this country years of my life in service before getting out and going to college. I traveled a lot and appreciate what this country is all about. The protections afforded you and me by those that served. You honor veterans and those in the military by doing a bit more than pay taxes. You uphold the Constitution. If that's being a 'bleeding heart' then okay, sign me up for that.

if you hit an innocent man in the jaw you can justify that by saying it could be worse I could have shot you? Who ARE you people.... Just wait until it is someone you care about who gets the short end of the Constitution and you'll be like my uber conservative friends who hate the government handouts -until they need the social safety net.

Even if you had 1/16th blood. 17 thousand children under 10. Americans who had SERVED during WW1. Did not matter. You still gonna defend this?

"On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order No. 9066 empowering the U.S. Army to designate areas from which "any or all persons may be excluded." No person of Japanese ancestry living in the United States was ever convicted of any serious act of espionage or sabotage during the war. Yet these innocent people were removed from their homes and placed in relocation centers, many for the duration of the war. In contrast, between 1942 and 1944, 18 Caucasians were tried for spying for Japan; at least ten were convicted in court.

Even though the justification for the evacuation was to thwart espionage and sabotage, newborn babies, young children, the elderly, the infirm, children from orphanages, and even children adopted by Caucasian parents were not exempt from removal. Anyone with 1/16th or more Japanese blood was included. In all, over 17,000 children under 10 years old, 2,000 persons over 65 years old, and 1,000 handicapped or infirm persons were evacuated.

In another story, perhaps apocryphal, Hideo Murata, a U.S. Army World War I veteran, committed suicide at a local hotel rather than be evacuated."

Are you telling me, that you have better decision-making skills than Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

Wow.That's quite an ego, you've got there.

Maybe you should have been advising MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, Nimitz, and Halsey too.

Do us both a favor and drop the subject, while we're still friends, and you're still welcome here.That's as politely as I can express myself, regarding a very sensitive topic.

If it were anyone else, I would have already told you to go "F" yourself...July 2, 2016 at 1:35 PM

I think you just did.

I am not smarter than FDR, rather he thought he was smarter than the Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al who wrote the Constitution. It wasn't his first time, he tried to override the Constitution by packing the Supreme Court in 1937 and Congress told him 'no.' And the Presidential Commission that later studied the issue of Japanese Internment said it was the wrong decision.

You put up a controversial topic and get upset when someone takes issue with it. It's your blog and I only have visiting privileges. So lets make this real easy on both of us as we both now have a better understanding of the other one. And given your views towards certain Americans we are clearly not friends.

And to quote George Jefferson, 'I will let the door nob hit me where the good Lord split me.'

Do the Democrats still think gun control (ALONE) in the US, is gonna solve this INTERNATIONAL problem?Can we finally say the term "radical Islam", and begin formulating a plan with the rest of the world?

My Dad used to say:"There's nothing glamorous about war... that's only in the movies"

He also used to say:"They took the best 4 years of my life"

The fact is, even the folks who weren't in the military, suffered gravely.

My uncle (my dad's brother) wasn't drafted into the military, but he was pressed into service at the Kaiser shipyard.

A skilled tradesman, they made him a "leading man" at the shipyard, and he worked 16 hours a day, 6 days a week building ships.It was TRULY, slave labor!He (and his men) worked around the clock, with little pay.How's THAT existence, for 4 years of your life?

From Wiki:"Henry Kaiser was known for developing new methods of ship building, which allowed his yards to outproduce other similar facilities and build 1,490 ships, 27 percent of the total Maritime Commission construction. Kaiser's ships were completed in two-thirds the time and a quarter the cost of the average of all other shipyards. Liberty ships were typically assembled in a little over two weeks, and one in less than five days"

Do you wanna know how Kaiser was able to complete ships in 2/3 the time, and 1/4 the cost, of other shipyards?Do you wanna know how they were able to build a ship in two weeks?

The answer:It was forced labor.They literally worked their men around the clock.

Of course there were some Japanese people in those camps, who were harmless.That goes without saying...

But sometimes unfortunately, people suffer for the actions of a minority.And THAT, was the theme of the entire war.

I like to believe, that most people in the world (during WWII) were decent people.But unfortunately, the majority of the world was made to suffer, because of a minority of maniacal regimes.That unfortunately, is the outcome of war.

The 1940's were a different time and place.The President (and the people) did the best they could, under stressful conditions (and "stressful" is putting it mildly).

My Dad, my Uncle, the Japanese in those internment camps, and thousands of other people, endured the misery of war.In all cases, four years of their lives, were TRULY ruined.

I'm not HAPPY that we had to fight the Japanese, Germans, and Italians.I'm not HAPPY that Japanese Americans were detained, for security reasons.

Any fool in their right mind, avoids war, whenever possible.I'm sure my Dad, my Uncle, and the Japanese people in those internment camps, would have preferred working together at a good-paying job, during peaceful times.What fool wouldn't?

I'm not gonna sit here, and second-guess the motives of our forefathers, 70+ years, after the fact.We got the job DONE, and the Japanese in those camps might not cop to it, but by winning the war, they benefited as well.

You can:A) Float around the ocean dodging bullets and bombs... while starving.B) Work as slave labor for the "war effort".C) Be detained inside an internment camp, for security reasons.

Someone sent me a very detailed thread on Laurence Merrick, some time ago. It was June 5th, to be exact. I sat on it for a long time, and decided to post it today (as a "conversation changer"). I'm told another blog ran a series of threads on the same topic fairly recently, so I decided to take it down. Sorry Tom, your comments on the new thread were lost. I'll try to re-post them here...

Why are there mass shootings in the USA on an almost weekly basis? I'm gonna answer my own question.

Because you are a violent, soulless, materialistic people. But you kept Leslie Van Houten in prison for forty years. Because she stabbed a rich lady in the ass.

You invade countries, they fight back, you leave. I don't get the fireworks and the pride. I really don't.

============================================================

July 3, 2016 at 5:54 PM Blogger LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Tom.

Although I rarely agree with anything you say, it's usually nice to see you, nonetheless.I hope you're doing well.

It's a global problem.

France, Turkey and Bangladesh have been hit recently, to name just a few...

In fact, in Bangladesh, people from several different countries were killed.

"A multi-national crowd was dining when terrorists invaded a trendy restaurant in Dhaka. The 20 slain hostages included nine Italians, seven Japanese, one Indian, two Bangladeshis and one U.S. citizen."

At this point, for your longstanding theory that "Americans bring this stuff upon themselves" to hold water, you'd pretty much have to assert that the entire world behaves in a manner which makes them deserving of these attacks.

I am doing well. I got more money than Donald Trump. Who I guess is your hero.

Americans are evil. Intrinsically evil. As in they don't know any better. They didn't ast the Indians can we have this land. They took it. They run up debt. Their kids are autistic. They are obese. They have high cancer rates.

Muslims are even crazier. If I gotta side in this conflict, I side with the Americans.

There are certain broad sections of the US where gun ownership is at a very high percentage yet with a very low homicide rate. Gun ownership, ownership of rifles, is not so simply causative of homicide.

And as far as FDR forcing Japanese-Americans into camps or Harry Truman dropping two A-bombs, one thing is for sure: we won. These men intuitively knew that goal #1 was to win and that the debate could happen later. Such were the stakes.

One more point. I come from a marxist country, Cuba. At one time people had the right to own firearms. When Castro rolled into Havana he denied up and down that he was a marxist and he pretty soon began to question why people needed to own guns. Eventually, when people couldn't prove to him to his satisfaction why they needed to have guns, he took them. That was when he began to unveil his true communist dictatorial self and that's when and che lined up people against the walls and executed them .....with guns, of course.

My point is this: never ever under any circumstances give up your guns. Our constitutional rights are granted by God and no government has to the right to abrogate them. No well-intentioned political leader would ever demand that people disarm themselves. It's only the wolf that demands the sheep disabuse themselves of the sheepdog.

Political leaders who try to disarm the people have plans in mind that an armed populace would never allow. Historically, this is how it goes down.

Stormsurge said:"And as far as FDR forcing Japanese-Americans into camps or Harry Truman dropping two A-bombs, one thing is for sure: we won. These men intuitively knew that goal #1 was to win and that the debate could happen later. Such were the stakes."

Stormsurge said:"One more point. I come from a marxist country, Cuba. At one time people had the right to own firearms. When Castro rolled into Havana he denied up and down that he was a marxist and he pretty soon began to question why people needed to own guns. Eventually, when people couldn't prove to him to his satisfaction why they needed to have guns, he took them. That was when he began to unveil his true communist dictatorial self and that's when and che lined up people against the walls and executed them .....with guns, of course.

My point is this: never ever under any circumstances give up your guns. Our constitutional rights are granted by God and no government has to the right to abrogate them. No well-intentioned political leader would ever demand that people disarm themselves. It's only the wolf that demands the sheep disabuse themselves of the sheepdog.

Political leaders who try to disarm the people have plans in mind that an armed populace would never allow. Historically, this is how it goes down."

Here's the deal:I don't have a problem with background checks (for gun purchases).I don't have a problem with required safety classes for gun owners.I don't have a problem with a ban on "assault weapons".

But having said all that, I'm totally against disarming citizens.

And therein, lies the problem we're facing.

Republicans fight EVERY gun safety proposal, because they fear, that ANY concessions at all, will eventually lead to their "guns being taken away".

Personally... I think the Republicans fear is warranted.IF the Democrats could completely halt the sale of guns to civilians, they would do it.You know it, and I know it.That's their ultimate goal.

And that's why, we're at a stalemate, when it comes to passing "smart gun laws".Neither side, wants to see the pendulum swing at all.

Lynyrd, always a pleasure to be here. You and Katie make me feel so welcome. I check the blog daily even if I don't post. I suppose I am a lurker.

I agree with nearly everything you posited. I got no problem with background checks or classes. We really have them now. As a recent gun trainee, I decided to learn safe and effective use of a firearm from a trained instructor (former USMC shooter) at a quality gun range.

But I have a problem with background checks to some degree. The Orlando shooter went through a super-background check with the FBI investigating him a few times and finally concluding that he could fly and own a gun. The Tsarnaev brothers passed immigration and post-immigration background checks (though the Russians were warning us about them) and the San Bernandino killer wife passed a background check to enter the country and stay here despite social media posting that could be construed as pro-terrorist.

So while I do favor background checks on gun purchasers, I do not for a second believe this will be too effective. Background checks for prospective gun owners won't necessarily catch many terrorists. They won't and maybe shouldn't catch people with mental health problems. Simply put, government screws up. Turning to govt to "check" people is nice and can catch some but it imho conveys a false confidence that govt that can't do much of anything right is going to keep us safe. It can't and it won't. Ultimately, the individual will have to keep themselves safe.If we're to have background checks for prospective gun owners who are now presumably US citizens then I favor a background check of prospective immigrants as to their belief system. Specifically, if the immigrant believes in sharia law over the US Constitution then I would disqualify that person from becoming a citizen. We cannot encourage enclaves of hostile, unassimilated, unassimilatable groups who would supplant US law with something very potentially counter to our laws and inimical to gays, women and others. Sharia and US law are just incompatible.

Further, most persons in prison on gun related charges got their gun illegally. All the gun control laws didn't stop them from getting a gun.

Lynyrd, while I agree with 99% of what you wrote, I ask for the opportunity to disagree on one point. Here's my problem with a ban on assault weapons. What exactly is an assault weapon and what distinguishes them from non-assault weapons? AR-15s are semi-automatic and in this sense not unlike any handgun, AR-15s are not military grade automatics and besides fully automatics have been under strict federal control since the 1930s and effectively banned. Also, AR-15s have sold like crazy the past 10-20 years while national homicide rates have declined. More guns have coincided with fewer murder nationally. And AR-15s account for only 1%-2% of all homicides nationally. If we're serious about reducing homicides it seems like the AR-15 given its infrequent cause of homicides if an odd place to start.

I truly believe that if we're serious about getting homicide rates down that we need to go to high homicide rates ares (south Chicago, Newark, many major cities) and deal with the causes: gangs, drugs, gang battles for turf and money, etc. First disarm the gangbangers who have guns they should not have. But this solution does not offer the immediate "villain" of the gun or the NRA or the false quick "solution" that a law can keep you or your loved ones safe. It's just the illusion of a fix to far more complicated problem, one that will take time and hard work and even politically incorrect actions to better address.

BTW, if elite politician D's are so intent on stripping gun rights away from the people, then I demand that their bodyguards be stripped of their guns first.

I see a problem i nthe US right now not of right versus left purely or R versus D but of ruling clas versus country class (Angelo Codevilla) wherein the elite rulers seek to control and regulate the ruled in ways that the rulers would never allow themselves to be regulated or controlled.

The not too reported story of 2016 is the rejection of the strongly centralized corrupt bureaucratic state in Europe and America. Austria will do a re-vote of a recently contested presidential election that may continue this trend and the US election could certainly continue the trend but btw Trump and Bernie, many voters have echoed the similar sentiment.

There's a story on Yahoo this morning about the governor in Virginia that wants to return gun rights to convicted felons. Of course Terry McAuliffe is a "Clinton kook" in my opinion anyway. That story is-->HERE.

That story reminds me of the time I bought a gun in Virginia, the one I ended up doing 3 years in prison for. It was neat, came with a flash suppressor, shoulder strap, two 32 round magazines, and it all fit into a neat little briefcase about the size of 2 cigar boxes. I found a video of that type of gun, some people claim they jammed a lot, mine never jammed once. I kept my guns clean, oiled, and didn't drop them. Here is a video of the IntraTec Tec-9.

The guy in the video says he's going to try to "bump" fire his gun, I'm not even sure what that is, but it probably damages the gun. "Hacking" guns is usually not a very good idea and that might be why people had problems with them jamming. The Tec-9 is basically useless for anything. It shoots 9 millimeter parabellum, not really good for hunting, target practice, or protecting yourself.

The thing about firearms is they can be super dangerous. If you are an idiot or know everything there is to know about guns, they can still kill or maim you. It's so easy to make a mistake, "forget" it's loaded, leave it laying around loaded where a kid can find it, ricochets, loading up your gun when you are drunk, etc. Guns and bullets can do some pretty bizarre things.

Nevertheless, it's written right into the US Constitution that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Politicians have a long history of trying to take away the rights of citizens, assembly, speech, religion, etc. That's why it was written into The Constitution in the first place and many Americans have died since 1776 to protect those rights. Happy 4th of July.

""Charlie Manson is a five foot seven schizophrenic, who if it weren't for the murder of Sharon Tate, would never be known or discussed. And I'm not saying he isn't funny and entertaining. I'm saying he's a dime a dozen criminal-class punk, who had the good fortune of running into some middle class pseudo-revolutionary white girls."

I liked that quote so much, it's been permanently affixed in the sidebar, ever since.

Years ago, he posted some really interesting stuff.

Unfortunately, in recent years, he generally only visits on major holidays to bash the United States.I'm not really sure, what that's about.

But truth be told, he's been coming here so long, I still kinda like the dude.

I had no idea, he was calling Marliese names though.That's definitely not cool.

I had no idea, he was calling Marliese names though.That's definitely not cool.

I didn't know that either and it is very not cool. I don't normally trouble myself with hate filled people when they offend me. Now I thought I might take the time to find out what his problem is. probably still not a good idea.

He speaks from a position that everyone in the world is evil and leaves himself out of it.

Sorry TomG, I must have confused you with TomG. The TomG that post negative USA comments every post. I understand you don't want to be standing up for your comments nor confirm your country. Claiming you don't know of Marliese just make you an even bigger bag of dung. Fine with me but the next time you spew you hate think twice.

Sorry Lynyrd, I don't like to cause trouble. My Dad landed on Ohmaha D day 299th engineer combat battalion, made it through the Bulge and to the end. He died at 92 a couple months back and my tolorence for these anti American ass holes is at an all time low. I'm sorry I know I'm not unique or special and everyone has eir story but I'm pissed about this whole thing. Mad. But I love the Katies & the Marliese's & most all of you here. Sorry. Good nite all & bless

Stormsurge said:"If we're to have background checks for prospective gun owners who are now presumably US citizens then I favor a background check of prospective immigrants as to their belief system. Specifically, if the immigrant believes in sharia law over the US Constitution then I would disqualify that person from becoming a citizen. We cannot encourage enclaves of hostile, unassimilated, unassimilatable groups who would supplant US law with something very potentially counter to our laws and inimical to gays, women and others. Sharia and US law are just incompatible."

Stormsurge said:"Lynyrd, while I agree with 99% of what you wrote, I ask for the opportunity to disagree on one point. Here's my problem with a ban on assault weapons. What exactly is an assault weapon and what distinguishes them from non-assault weapons? AR-15s are semi-automatic and in this sense not unlike any handgun, AR-15s are not military grade automatics and besides fully automatics have been under strict federal control since the 1930s and effectively banned. Also, AR-15s have sold like crazy the past 10-20 years while national homicide rates have declined. More guns have coincided with fewer murder nationally. And AR-15s account for only 1%-2% of all homicides nationally. If we're serious about reducing homicides it seems like the AR-15 given its infrequent cause of homicides if an odd place to start."

=============================================

I'm way ahead of you Stormsurge.That's why, I put the words "assault weapons" in quotes.

If you scroll up, you'll see that I said the following to Surgio:

True military "assault weapons" are fully automatic.You hold the trigger down, and it keeps firing.

The "AR-15" (and the like) which are sold to civilians, are shaped exactly the same as military assault weapons (they're basically replicas)... but they're not fully automatic weapons... they're semi-automatic.As you said, each time you pull the trigger, the gun fires only once.

BUT unfortunately... because the AR-15 (and the like) are physically shaped like a military "tactical" assault weapon, people panic.

In reality, the "AR-15" is just a semi-automatic rifle, with no greater capabilities than any semi-automatic hunting rifle... it just looks much more daunting.

But... that's kinda my point.

The NRA, Donald Trump, Republicans, and gun owners in general, would really lose nothing, if they conceded to the ignorance of the general public, and simply bought semi-automatic hunting rifles instead.Personally, I think the modern "tactical guns" (such as the AR-15) are ugly as ass anyway.

If those "assault weapons" scare people, why bother?Having guns shaped like M16's is kinda silly, and it serves no real purpose... as I said, it's overkill.The gun manufacturers are probably making big money on those tactical "replicas", because gun owners themselves, evidently believe there's something "magical", or inherently more "lethal" about them.It's foolish.I say, ban them... and let all the liberals stfu.

Bob said:"Sorry Lynyrd, I don't like to cause trouble. My Dad landed on Ohmaha D day 299th engineer combat battalion, made it through the Bulge and to the end. He died at 92 a couple months back and my tolorence for these anti American ass holes is at an all time low. I'm sorry I know I'm not unique or special and everyone has eir story but I'm pissed about this whole thing. Mad. But I love the Katies & the Marliese's & most all of you here. Sorry. Good nite all & bless".

Love you BOB!

I THANK and SALUTE your father for his service to our great nation, on this Independence Day!

"If those "assault weapons" scare people, why bother?Having guns shaped like M16's is kinda silly, and it serves no real purpose... as I said, it's overkill.The gun manufacturers are probably making big money on those tactical "replicas", because gun owners themselves, evidently believe there's something "magical", or inherently more "lethal" about them.It's foolish.I say, ban them... and let all the liberals stfu."

Lynyrd, that's really the point. Liberals will never stfu especially if by screaming and crying they get what they want. If they get what they want they will undoubtedly not shut up but will move to the next thing and so on and so on until nothing will be left to ban because nothing will be left to lawfully own.

Sunset said:"The thing about firearms is they can be super dangerous. If you are an idiot or know everything there is to know about guns, they can still kill or maim you. It's so easy to make a mistake, "forget" it's loaded, leave it laying around loaded where a kid can find it, ricochets, loading up your gun when you are drunk, etc. Guns and bullets can do some pretty bizarre things."

===============================

You're absolutely correct.

I've wrestled with the idea of buying a gun (for personal protection), ever since all these mass killings started.I've BEEN wrestling with it, for 2 years now.

But as of yet, I haven't bought one, because I have a healthy fear of guns.

We're all humans, and humans make mistakes.Every time I type a post on here, I press the wrong keyboard key at least once, and I have to go back and fix it.

With guns, there are no "do overs"!

Machines also malfunction, through no fault of the operator.

Guns are dangerous.Carrying a gun is dangerous.If a gun discharges in your pocket, it could pierce your femoral artery.

God forbid, if a child was ever injured with my weapon, I'd never forgive myself.

And ALL THAT, is not even considering the EXTREME liability involved with discharging that weapon intentionally.

If you shoot a person dead, you better have a DAMN GOOD fucking reason for doing so... and you better HOPE to God, the jury believes your story.

Any time you pull that trigger, it has to be with the full knowledge, that you could potentially end-up in jail for murder.

Even low caliber guns are deadly.More people are killed with .22 caliber ammo each year, than any other size cartridge.Any IDIOT who purports that .22 caliber ammo is not lethal, is a damn fool.

As of now, I just don't think the dangers in our world quite outweigh, the inherent dangers involved in owning, carrying, and cleaning a weapon.If you couple that with the legal liabilities... I'm just not there yet.

Having said all that...If someone wants to own a gun, I think they should definitely have the right.It's a serious personal decision, and it's not for everybody.

Stormsurge said:"Lynyrd, that's really the point. Liberals will never stfu especially if by screaming and crying they get what they want. If they get what they want they will undoubtedly not shut up but will move to the next thing and so on and so on until nothing will be left to ban because nothing will be left to lawfully own."

=================================

Hi Stormsurge.

I agreed with your above statement earlier, when I said:

Republicans fight EVERY gun safety proposal, because they fear, that ANY concessions at all, will eventually lead to their "guns being taken away".

Personally... I think the Republicans fear is warranted.IF the Democrats could completely halt the sale of guns to civilians, they would do it.You know it, and I know it.That's their ultimate goal.

And that's why, we're at a stalemate, when it comes to passing "smart gun laws".Neither side, wants to see the pendulum swing at all.

Thanx for your post about buying a gun Lynyrd, yes they are dangerous. Even the most skilled and trained people in the world sometimes have "accidents" with guns. I don't know where you live or how bad the crime is in your area or if you are even allowed to have a gun where you live.

You can put trigger locks on your guns or lock your guns in a safe, but when you need them, you can't get to them quickly. Another thing is often "firearms trainers" don't know much more about guns than most people. This story is on Yahoo right now as I type this: Father Accidentally Shoots Teenage Son at Florida Gun Range:

"Authorities say a 14-year-old boy was accidentally shot and killed by his father at a Florida gun range.

William Brumby was firing his weapon at the High Noon Gun Range in Sarasota on Sunday when a spent shell casing deflected off a nearby wall and landed inside the back of his shirt.

A statement from the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office says Brumby tried to remove the shell with his right hand, which was holding the gun and accidentally fired the gun at his son, who was standing directly behind him."

Reminds me of what happened when I was in junior high. One brother was a grade ahead of me, the other a grade behind. The older boy was walking down a trail with a 12 gauge shotgun. He raised the shotgun and put it over his shoulder pointing directly backwards. It discharged, hit his brother right in the face, and killed him. The older brother didn't get on the school bus for about 2 months, and he was never the same after that. That happened only about 1/2 mile from where I live "as the crow flies". My dad told me later he heard those people screaming out that lane where they lived that night.

I grew up with guns, fired many thousands of rounds, many kids around here did. A .357 magnum pistol or a short shotgun can be great for personal protection but man you gotta be careful. I don't think even I would keep a gun loaded in the house, it doesn't take that long to load a gun. If you don't know anything at all about guns, I'd find out everything you need to know about the particular gun you get. How it loads, how to fire it, where the safety is, etc. There is a vast difference in makes, models and types of firearms. Guns are only as safe as the people that have them.

FBI Director James Comey said:"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

There is evidence to support a conclusion, that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for these emails.

We assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people, and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess, it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's email account."

He went on to say, that individual's who behave as Clinton did, often face "security and administrative sanctions".

==========================================

It's over.

The Bottom line:Although Clinton acted in an extremely careless and unprofessional manner, charges are not being recommended.

Comey spoke a lot about "lack of intent", to explain his final decision.

I must say, as a Trump supporter, I'm a bit disappointed by the findings, but I have faith in the FBI and James Comey... and I respect their findings and decision.

I have no faith in Comey or the FBI and I do not respect their findings.

This fix was in a long time ago for the simple reason that there is no conceivable way Hillary could have maintained a non .gov email address and that others sending email to her or receiving email from her would not have noticed. Someone had to have noticed or have known she was doing this.

That knowledge and the unwillingness to act to safeguard sensitive and classified material made a whole lot of people in addition to Hillary criminally culpable as well.

imho this was the card - the nuclear card - crooked hillary would have played has obama decided to go after her. He decided against it long ago and the fix was in long ago.

No one gets to the level of these people - sec'y state, fbi director - unless they're willing to "play ball." The truly honest ones almost never get to these ranks.

So acceot that one more institution has been corrupted and that we're on a downward descent Venezuela style with a similar fate unless there is an internal breaking apart before a national going over the cliff. This will end in violence and suffering. Lawlessness usually ends like that.

I find this almost comical, as years ago (when Obama was competing against Clinton in the primaries), he described her as "untrustworthy", "unqualified"... etc., etc.There's plenty of old video footage of Obama bashing Clinton, if one takes the time to search it out.

they despise each other and still do. he didn't destroy her because she could have destroyed him back. how's he gonna say that her having a private server in a colorado bathroom closet was criminal if he knew or should have known she had a private, non-governmental account to begin with. There are emails btw them that clearly identify her non-.gov email address and to think the POTU would not know his own SOS was sending and receiving classified material out of the loop?

No way.

He was going to be shown to criminally negligent along with her. He had to be as did many others and he therefore couldn't destroy her as he likely wanted to do.

Just go back to the presser Joe Biden held to announce he would not run for Pres. He looked so disappointed and obama was there next to him to make sure slo-jo didn't go off the rails or start changing his mind. The fix was in no later than then.

Man I could chew nails today. I love this country and we're dying. Rather, we're being murdered.

Hi everyone, I haven't been online much lately. Dealing with much drama in my life right now. Here's my 2 cents. I'm totally with Lynyrd (etc) on this one. Am I saying this to kiss up to him? Absolutely not. If I disagreed, I'd say so. Is the U.S. perfect? No. To say it's perfect is like saying a person is perfect. None of us are. We all have our faults. There's always room for improvement. I come from a family with many military members. Some joined, others were drafter, all served willingly. Some made it their career and some are still making it their career. We were raised to be proud of our country. I know I am.

"Today, the FBI admitted that Hillary Clinton endangered the American people—and confirmed that the worst things any of us imagined about Hillary’s email server were true.FBI Director James Comey concluded that Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets.

He admitted that no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable.He admitted that 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent—showing that Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as Secretary of State.

He admitted that Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise.

And most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted that it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails--and that our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions.

But when you’re a Clinton, none of this matters. Not when you have the ear of the President, or you can call a secret airport meeting with the Attorney General. Not when you behave as if you’re above the law, and will never be held responsible for your actions.

Mr. Comey admitted that someone caught in a similar situation would “often” be punished. And yet, he announced the FBI would not recommend criminal charges for Hillary Clinton.

It’s not just a miscarriage of justice, but a blow to the very heart of our democracy. This is a shameful day for the rule of law and the security of our nation, no matter what your political beliefs may be.

The Obama Administration might be circling the wagons, and doing all they can to prop up their corrupt, incompetent, untrustworthy Democratic nominee—but the American people know better. And if our government won’t make her face consequences, voters will"

@Lynyrd, owing that Tec-9 didn't get me thrown into jail, it's what I did with it that did. I don't really want to go into the details of that, it was a long time ago and a lot of bad memories. At that time, the politicians in this state were extremely anti gun, and cheap semi automatic assault style weapons were just becoming available. The cops weren't particularly impressed when they seen that gun with the 2 clips I had taped together. Most people around here only had hunting rifles and pistols. Technically, I did 3 years in prison for a probation violation, "real prison" not jail. Plus, the cops took my Tec-9 and I will never see it again. I didn't kill or wound anyone or even try to, I'll say that much.

1.) never play with guns2.) never play with anyone elses woman3.) never discuss religion or politics with anyone you like...

and you will stay out of trouble ;)

Quite a few people I like have showed up to comment on this post, so I thought I would just say hello and leave you with some fruit for thought.

In my opinion we have a poor choice this year no matter which side you are on. They are both greedy, dishonest, self serving players. It is all about enriching themselves and getting what they want at all costs. How do you respect or trust either?

The realest difference between the two of them is how they have made their money and fortunes- in my opinion. Clinton has made herself rich serving others her entire life, and Trump has made himself rich at the expense of others his entire life and that is fact. She has, at least some experience is government and politics. You have to have some of that to get anything done. As it is- they wont work together to pass bills and get anything done. How is Trump going to get anyone to work together at all? He has insulted everyone on both sides. Some of his own people wont get behind him.

Before you decide that Trump can fix the economy because he is a "Great Business man" you should realize exactly what kind of business man he has been.He has made a fortune doing business- not building business. The business' are always incorporated so that when they fail- they always do- he isn't personally responsible. However, while they operate- he pays himself royalties and bonuses, ans charges them fees to use his name...

Please read this article - I beg all of you who dont really know his story. it will tell you alot about Trump and his practices... The exact people who are lower middle class working people who support him- are the ones he has been screwing his entire life.

On the presidential campaign trail, Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, often boasts of his success in Atlantic City, of how he outwitted the Wall Street firms that financed his casinos and rode the value of his name to riches. A central argument of his candidacy is that he would bring the same business prowess to the Oval Office, doing for America what he did for his companies.

“Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me,” Mr. Trump said in an interview in May, summing up his 25-year history here. “The money I took out of there was incredible.”

His audacious personality and opulent properties brought attention — and countless players — to Atlantic City as it sought to overtake Las Vegas as the country’s gambling capital. But a close examination of regulatory reviews, court records and security filings by The New York Times leaves little doubt that Mr. Trump’s casino business was a protracted failure. Though he now says his casinos were overtaken by the same tidal wave that eventually slammed this seaside city’s gambling industry, in reality he was failing in Atlantic City long before Atlantic City itself was failing.

But even as his companies did poorly, Mr. Trump did well. He put up little of his own money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other payments. The burden of his failures fell on investors and others who had bet on his business acumen.

In three interviews with The Times since late April, Mr. Trump acknowledged in general terms that high debt and lagging revenues had plagued his casinos. He did not recall details about some issues, but did not question The Times’s findings. He repeatedly emphasized that what really mattered about his time in Atlantic City was that he had made a lot of money there.

Mr. Trump assembled his casino empire by borrowing money at such high interest rates — after telling regulators he would not — that the businesses had almost no chance to succeed.

“He put a number of local contractors and suppliers out of business when he didn’t pay them,” said Steven P. Perskie, who was New Jersey’s top casino regulator in the early 1990s. “So when he left Atlantic City, it wasn’t, ‘Sorry to see you go.’ It was, ‘How fast can you get the hell out of here?’”

That is the Trump trick. Please Read the article. 4 times he did he same thing. He uses the investor money to pay himself and his other interests- instead of paying the builders and contractors, then files for bankruptcy and leaves the investors hanging. HE is the only one who makes money, and everyone else gets screwed.

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE!! It breaks down the specific details of how he does it.

Then go look at his campaign finance reports. If you are not economically savy- it wont matter. He is doing the same thing. Guess where his contributions are going? Wine bill- Eric Trump winery in Virginia. Travel- Trump planes, Food- Trump catering... lol staff- entire family- any did you know by law- he is allowed to consider the personal money he does put out, aside from what goes to his own business, a "loan" which he can pay himself back from out of the Republican party coffers?

He is not self financing- he is putting tax free contributions into his own businesses, which he will use as leverage to show profit in those businesses, so he can borrow more money for other projects. In addition- his brand has grown. Can you imagine the show he is going to get after this? Trump could potentially end up profiting quite a bit from this run- win or loose.

Do you ever wonder why he doesn't follow any rules, try to make any friends, or raise any money? He relies entirely on cable news to cover his pep rallies and twitter to get his message out. no ground game, no infrastructure, no raising of money. Does this seem like someone who really wants to, or expected to win?

or is this a guy who got in this for other reasons, and realizes he has already won?

I won't be following your link, because #1, I simply don't have the time today, and #2, I've already got a pretty good handle on both candidates at this point. I could post a dozen "non-flattering" links regarding both candidates, at this point.

I really don't think Hillary OR Trump are great options (I agree with you there), but given the choice of the two, I'll roll my dice on Trump.

In retrospect, it's a shame some of the other candidates did not make it through the primaries.

Our nation could be in trouble, either way.Hillary is gonna bring us "more of the same", which I definitely don't want.(Although, I will concede, Obama did a pretty solid job with the economy.)And Trump could be great, OR he could land us in the midst of a war, because he's never had to compromise his whole life... and being "uncompromising" isn't always a good trait in foreign affairs. (Although I'll quickly note, being a doormat isn't either).

For the record, I've always been registered as an Independent... and I have never gotten sucked into politics very deeply, until this election season.

I usually reserve my final vote until after the debates.I think the debates are the most "revealing" portion of the election process.Although at this point, I can hardly stomach watching Hillary speak, so she'd really have to pull a rabbit out of her hat, and Trump would really have to crash and burn.But, I never say never...

Truth be told, I think both of these candidates would do a pretty good job with the economy.If both have one strong point, that would be it.I think the economy is the least of our worries... it's all the other issues that worry me.

Government experience is not a plus for the person who is going to be running the government?

I love you to death, and this is why my mom told me never to discuss politics or religion with people you like...

All the very best to LSB3 and the great people in this room, whom I hope are having a great summer and excellent life!

Trump/Clinton - it only really matters to those who care about the bill of rights.

Nothing ever gets done anyway, they refuse to work together as it is, and nobody on either side trusts either of these people. So it will be the same gridlock in Washington on matters that affect most middle class people.

BUT... the next president is going to decide the final/deciding seat on Supreme Court, and that does matter. Gun Control, and abortion- things like that will be at stake. Its the swing vote on Supreme Court, and Senate/House cant block them.

So I guess where you stand on those things should really decide who to support...

I just cant get excited about any of it.But, I was born in NYC and grew up in NJ and have been aware of Trump my whole life. I lived through the Atlantic City debacle, the many lawsuits and bankruptcies, and then also watched him fold the USFL. I have read his books, and been aware of his strategy and story for many, many years before even mentioned running for office. So I can go back and show you the real Trump when he wasn't worried about cable news repeating him, or replaying his quotes. I just hope people understand who this guy really is....

Heading out of town for a few days on an Island in the gulf of Mexico- thank god they don't have walls lol

P.S.- so as to not have anyone think I am trying to sway people towards Hillary- I feel after the FBI report, she should have been instantly disqualified. She should not be allowed near classified info ever again...

Brutal choices this year. I guess my point is it should be about which values you prefer and not which person, because these are both bad people.

Once again, I'm late for an appointment (LOL), but I'll respond tonight or tomorrow.I seem to have a problem with punctuality lately... it's probably this gorgeous summer weather.I think I'm starting to realize, I've only got so many of these summers left. LOLEnjoy it, while you can!

If you will forgive me, it isn't this bad guy, that unhinged guy, that fellow that went crazy.......it s Americans.

You're socialized to be violent. Did they come to North America to be peaceful? Have they been peaceful since? Who has been in more wars in our lifetimes......Iran, North Korea, China or the USA?

You can villianize individuals but they are just a reflection of who you are and your culture. Gun nuts. Me first, lazy, half retarded creeps who love Jesus, especially when they are getting booked into county jail.

Homicide rates are higher in many latin american countries than they are in the United States. Many of these countries have very strict gun laws too. Freedom, Christianity, love of country are not evil and they are not the causes of violence. Sorry.

When I use to believe in God, they taught us it was wrong to hate. No matter how justified that hate was, that a spirit of a human being was love, forgiveness and for searching for that in everyone else.

TomG said...If you will forgive me, it isn't this bad guy, that unhinged guy, that fellow that went crazy.......it s Americans.

You're socialized to be violent. While many of my posts may seem anti-American, I actually like it here.

Bob said...So TomG, I'll try again. Just what country are you from ? As you once again tell us Americans how bad we are you seem to also imply that you are somehow not a part of it. Are you somehow the one and only American above it all ? I like how you delete the emails you don't want to be called out on. Anyway whats the deal ? get on here tell us americans how bad we are. Does it somehow elevate your feelings ? Do you just need a hug ? Do you hate American dog's too or just us people ?

TomG, I found God by being around someone who was dying (my mother) and reading His words (Bible) not what anyone else said about Him. Mother Teresa I believe said that helping the dying was a way to find Him. I pray that you will give either or both a last attempt before you cannot.

There has apparently been a terrorist attack in Nice, France. A person apparently drove a truck through a crowd of people that were dispersing after watching a fireworks show. As I type this, news stations are reporting 73 dead and 100 wounded. A graphic video of the aftermath is already posted online, (it will probably be removed). Warning, a pretty graphic video can be seen here-->GRAPIC VIDEO

FRIENDS

"Charlie Manson is a five foot seven schizophrenic, who if it weren't for the murder of Sharon Tate, would never be known or discussed. And I'm not saying he isn't funny and entertaining. I'm saying he's a dime a dozen criminal-class punk, who had the good fortune of running into some middle class pseudo-revolutionary white girls." -- Tom G

"The simple and undeniable truth, is that Charlie and the gang were/are the biggest idiots, morons and imbeciles on the planet." -- Leary7

"Them fucking fruitcakes could not pour piss out of a boot, with the bottom written on it."--Harold True